TWeaK

At least 3 backups, 2 different media, 1 offsite location.

Yeah I know, however when you reply to someone from a notification you just want to reply.

Also, when you move up the context on a Lemmy thread you see each comment and all its other comments. If the comment chain you’re replying on isn’t the top thread, then you get cluttered up with all the others. On reddit, context meant you only saw the comments that directly lead to the comment you were deriving context from. Furthermore, context was derived from the comment URL with a ?context=3 suffix, so you could easily specify how far up the chain you wanted to go.

Lemmy does context differently, but I prefer reddit’s method.

Before the trial happens, it could really go either way, even if the defendant is obviously in the right - there could be some procedural slip up that causes them to lose anyway.

However, a lawyer isn’t going to assume that they will make some slip up, so if it is obviously in the defendant’s favour they will work pro bono. There is still some risk for them, because if they lose they don’t get paid, but they’re confident they’ll win.

Edit: wrote the reply thinking this was a conversation about awarding costs to the defendant, that was a different thread. The first paragraph remains unchanged though.

I wish Lemmy showed you more of the context than just the last reply.

I was thinking more about the occassions where there is no news article whatsoever, but you make a good point also.

Yes they do have to fund their defense to begin with, however there has to be some balance struck. Until the court proceedings are concluded it isn’t known which side is in the right.

I think most countries’ public funding for legal representation is limited to criminal matters, and even then you have to qualify (eg have a very low income or be unemployed). With civil matters, it’s up to you to find a lawyer you can afford, or one who will take it on pro bono.

If the defendent is obviously in the right, then it should be more likely that they can find a lawyer who will work pro bono.

It’s a bigger problem in the States than elsewhere. In the US, awarding legal costs is the exception, not the norm, so someone with a lot of money and access to lawyers can basically intimidate a defendent into avoiding court. In the rest of the world, courts are much more likely to award costs to a defendent who has done nothing wrong - if you file a frivilous lawsuit and lose, you’ll probably have to pay the costs of the person you tried to sue.

This guy’s in Germany, so I think he’d be alright if he clearly won. The issue, however, is that courts aren’t really equipped for handling highly technical cases and often get things wrong.

The thing is, what most people aren’t aware of is the amount of times the Streisand effect doesn’t happen.